I have a question to put forward....

[Drunken Tiger]

This is actually for a school debate... and i would greatly appreciate it if some of you guys contributed some points for me..

"That we have more to fear from George W. Bush than we do from the axis of evil"

I have got some points for the affirmative side... but not the other side... personally i feel that he does pose more of a threat than teh axis of evil..

Your opinions??

DT

ps.. this is not meant to be an anti-bush post....

[Starkist]

Quite frankly, that is a stupid idea. Unless you are a terrorist, or a supporter of terrorism, the United States is not your enemy. Last time I checked, Australia does not support terrorism, in fact they support the United States' crusade against Islamic terror.

The myth that the president is dangerous to the world is propogated by many in Western Europe, who see the United States as a threat to their power. George W. Bush did his best to gain global support for this crusade, but in the end refused to bow to France and Germany's demands for appeasement. As he said in his recent State of the Union address, "...the United States will never ask for a permission slip..." to defend ourselves. Before September 11, 2001, our policy was to be on the defensive. However, a great force in the world proved their will, and a desire to destroy the United States. We are now on the offensive. We refused to wait for Iraq to become the imminent threat they were moving toward, and took out the Saddam regime now. We destroyed the terror training camps in Iraq and Afghanistan. We created a desirable situation for Libya to capitulate and get rid of their weapons of terror.

As I said, unless you are a terrorist, you have nothing to fear from President George Walker Bush. However, if you wish destruction on the USA and seek to bring that about: watch out.

[Drunken Tiger]

But what happened to the WMD that he based the invasion of Iraq on?? Plus doesnt the fact that only Britain and Australia eneterd the war with the USA say anything about the rest of the world.. (not that Australia done much) no disrespect to the Australian soldiers who risked their lives by simply showing up...

Also the fact that as governor of Texas, he sent more prisoners to their death than any other governor. This alone shows his disregard for human life.. not that the Talliban are any better, but this is a man who is in command of one of the, in not the strongest countries in the world, not to mention hs is also the Commander In Chief of the enter USA Military.

Just some other points..

[Kirby of Doom]

It says that the rest of the world is wrong ;)

Also, there's a difference between killing bad people and killing innocent people.

[Starkist]

WMDs were not the only basis for war. Besides, Iraq was actively working to create WMDs. The possibility exists that WMDs were smuggled out of the country prior to the US invasion. Saddam was defying the UN, believing that nobody would bother to stop him.

As for the nations of the Coalition, why are Australia and Britain less important than France and Germany? People seem to think that those two countries should have some kind of veto power over international actions. Neither nation has any real power anymore. Dozens of nations support the United States in this righteous crusade.

George W. Bush did not put "more prisoners to death than any other governor." First, it is judges and juries who decide punishment of criminals. A governor of a state may halt an execution, but is not responsible for them. Texas executes more people than other US states, but they were not all under George Bush's watch. Second, the death penalty does not show disregard for human life. Executions in the USA are limited to the worst criminals, those who have willfully taken the lives of innocent people. The death penalty is a deterrent, a punishment, and a means of making sure this criminal can never harm a person again.

[Melonhead]

My problem with this argument is the message it sends to the rest of the world: Many people in our country hate our president.

It is okay to not like the decisions someone makes, but it is completely out of line to hate the president. Any time someone calls themselves a 'Bush-hater', I try to distance myselves from them.

[J.J. Maxx]

Well, let's see, The Communist nation of North Korea has between 150,000 and 200,000 political prisoners working as slave labourers in prison colonies. Their prisoners are given just enough food to be on the verge of starvation and are forced to do back-breaking labour such as mining for iron ore and harvesting vegetables in sub-zero temperatures.

North Korea is also at the top of a list of countries where Christians are persecuted. North Korea under the leadership of Dictator Kim Jong II routinely kills, tortures, and imprisons Christians in horrendous conditions.

They are also using the threat of nuclear weapon proliferation to assure security from the U.S.

As far as Iran, they are slwoly becoming a nation that the U.N. can live with as they are actively cooperating with inspectors and just being overly positive.

I don't really need to go on. This is a rediculous argument that has no basis on truth, facts or reality. C'mon people, let's grow up, shall we?

[Saffith]

It is okay to not like the decisions someone makes, but it is completely out of line to hate the president. Any time someone calls themselves a 'Bush-hater', I try to distance myselves from them.Then what, pray tell, would you consider an acceptable reason to dislike him? Or do you mean to say you think there is no valid reason?

[Melonhead]

Then what, pray tell, would you consider an acceptable reason to dislike him? Or do you mean to say you think there is no valid reason?
I'm talking about the difference between hating someone and not liking them.

[slothman]

My problem with this argument is the message it sends to the rest of the world: Many people in our country hate our president.

It is okay to not like the decisions someone makes, but it is completely out of line to hate the president. Any time someone calls themselves a 'Bush-hater', I try to distance myselves from them.
I guess you won't like me then as I hate Bush.
I was going to say something insightful But I can't think of any way of stating that Bush cares about you as much as Al Qadea. So I'll just keep my mouth shut I won't convince you and you won't convince me.

[Brian]

I agree with Starkist, that idea is completely absurd. George W. Bush is not going to blow up the building you're in. In an extreme worst case scenario, the worst Bush could do is send you off to war (assuming that the draft got started up), where you would have a chance to survive, and a good one to in our army, compared to a terrorist from the axis of evil, who could kill you in a terrorist act. The latter isn't as far-fetched as the former.

Bush is a decent president, not the best, but he'll be gone in no more than a little over four years. The Axis of Evil will be continuing its evil for long after that, I'll bet.

Unless Bush puts an end to it... ;)

[slothman]

Here's something I hope will start up a good discussion. How 'bout each person who like Bush try and think of something Bush did wrong and each person who doesn't like him try to think of something he does right. Sometimes a good debate can come from thinking like your "opponent." I'll start by saying that he actually has well defined morals ands trys to live by them. Or at least he seems to.

[Brian]

Well thats easy for me. I would say (and have already mentioned in another topic) that Bush trying to open up the border with Mexico for more immigration is the worst idea I've heard in a long time.

[J.J. Maxx]

I was going to say something insightful But I can't think of any way of stating that Bush cares about you as much as Al Qadea.

I dunno, in 2003 I recieved a $400 check from the president that helped get me out of some serious debt and help buy groceries and things. I've yet to recieve any money from Al Queda. Perhaps they lost my address? ;)

As far as the president's track record, I don't think it's a question of 'right' and 'wrong' but a question of positive choices and negative choices. Besides, most of the political things set before President Bush were concocted by somebody else way before he even adopts it. Alot of times he needs to follow his Republican constituents(sp?).

[Ich]

I think the current problem is in Washington's corporate whoredom. Both Democrats and Republicans are guilty of favoring friends and campaign contributors with governmental contracts and the like, but Haliburton is coming to mind right now, and Democrats have been out of power long enough for me to forget their problems. By contributing money to congressmen (and congresswomen) you essentially pay for someone to push your agenda. I think that finance reforms should be instituted. Take the DMCA. Something needs to be done about it, but for the EFF and a few others, nobody is lobbying against corporate interests of this sort.

[Melonhead]

Democrats have been out of power long enough for me to forget their problems.

3 years is long enough?

[Starkist]

What the news media will not tell you is that corporations like Halliburton and Enron contribute huge amounts of money to both parties. That way they are covered no matter who controls the government.